1. No elected official may hold consecutive terms. (in regards to congress)
This would certainly do a lot to eliminate the power of incumbency and would not limit the number of terms that an qualified individual could be elected to an office. They’d simply have to return to their respective districts and live under the laws that they have enacted. They could run for office again the next election cycle. The idea here is to eliminate the career politician and reduce the amount of corruption that our current system seems to have fostered. It would hopefully end the era of elected nobility
2. No elected official may accept a campaign contribution of any kind while in office. (in regards to congress)
This would help to end the selling of favors to special interest groups that our current system has fostered.
3. The number of representative shall be one for every 30,000 citizens.
This is actually the representation ratio as set forth in the Constitution Article 1, Section 2. In todays world of technology it is not necessary that our representatives gather in a single place in order to cast a vote or debate a bill. They could all have a subscription for gotomeeting.com. More importantly any qualified candidate could quite literally mount a viable campaign without spending a dime. A little shoe leather and some time and a candidate could literally shake the hand of every voter in his/her district. The current ratio is somewhere in the vicinity of 600,000 to one and facilitates the ability of special interests groups to unduly influence policy. This is campaign finance reform at its simplest
4. Congress shall receive NO PENSIONS
Representing the interests of a Representative’s district or a Senator’s State should be a civic duty and not a career. Our military does not receive a pension for a single tour of duty and they place their lives in jeopardy for our freedoms. Why should a congressman recieve a pension for a mere two or six years of non-hazardous duty.
5. Congressional pay shall be set and approved by the State from which each congressman is a native. The States NOT the federal government shall pay the salaries of their respective Representatives and Senators.
5. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The 17th Amendment allows for direct election of Senators by the populace. The purpose of the Senate is to represent the rights of States not the general population. Selection of Senators should be left to the individual State’s State legislators or whatever means desired by the individual State. Again we’d see a reduction of the influence weilded by special interest groups in contradiction to the interest of the States and their rights.
6. Repeal the 16th Amendment and institute a value added tax.
The individual’s privacy is compromised by the current system and the individual tax payer is unduly burdened by the expense of of tax preparation. The current system is incomprehensible. With a value added tax all citizens would have a stake in keeping our government as small as possible because no one would be exempt from the taxation that funds the largess of government.
7. Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank.
8. No business is too big to fail and bailouts of private business entities shall be prohibited.
It is the responsibility of the stockholders through the selection/election of the board of directors of a corporation to exercise due diligence in ensuring that their interests are being protected. Failure to exercise such control shall warrant the loss of their investment through the bankruptcy process.
Concerning Publicly Traded Corporations – Since a Public Corporation is a construct of the State certain restrictions on the pay and compensation of corporate executives and employees should be enacted to preclude the looting of corporate assets to the detriment of stockholders, employees and customers.
A. Executive pay shall not exceed a multiple of 50 of the average compensation of all employees.
This would preclude executives from unduly benefiting by engaging in such policies that are detrimental to its employees such as moving factories to countries where wages are exploitively low. The logic here is that what executive whose salary is based on an average employees salary choose to move a plant/factory where wages are say $20 an hour to a country where wages are 20 cents an hour. Corporations have a duty not only to the stockholder but also to those whose life energy has been devoted to their place of employment. For an executive to increase his compensation he/she would be incentivized to raise all boats with the tide.
B. Executive bonuses/stock options etc. shall be be identical to the workers as a percentage of base compensation.
The rational here is that it takes all of the parts to create a whole. Executives are paid to make decisions, workers are paid to carry out those decisions. All are part of the whole and one cannot exist without the other therefore all should benefit from the rewards reaped from the symbiotic relationship.
Just food for thought… Please feel free to add laws you’d like to see in the reply or provide rebuttals to my rational.
Director of Operation – Global Poker Federation
Served seven years in the US Army with one tour in SE Asia and a three year tour in Karlsruhe Germany.
Graduated from Utah Technical College with a degree in Business Management
Previously worked with Boeing as a Computer Applications Analyst / Industrial Engineer – Provided top level management within the Military and Missile Systems Division with performance metrics and analysis.
I agree that William Edward articulated your point very well, Donald. That, however, still doesn’t make me agree with any of the concept of government involving itself in financial compensation within private enterprises.
Whether I agree that some packages are obscene (and I do, as a matter of fact) does not mean that what you or Edward suggests is Constitutional in it’s construct. Government is not the solution, as Reagan eloquently pointed out. Or perhaps put another way, just because you see what you consider a financial injustice does not mean “there oughta be a law….”
Now, go back to the “incentive” latest suggestion. So who in the corporation gets the incentive rebate? Or are you going to add another law that tells them how they are allowed to use that rebate?
Again, I say, you cannot legislate behavior in men. And that includes greed.
A corporation that opted to include a maximum mulitplier for executive compensation in their charter would leave the matter in private hands. The incentive of capital gains reduction/elimination would accrue to the stockholders.
This would then be a matter of free will for all concerned.
If government took a completely laissez faire attitude concerning how businesses are run or how people invest their money, why bother having the SEC?
A year ago had this string, somehow, suggested that the federal government had a lick to do with the amount of compensation paid to company employees–public or private–the conversation would have gone something like, “What, are you crazy?” Now, the concept is spoken of as if the government actually has a “right” to regulate same providing certain guidelines are met. It doesn’t. It’s a slippery slope we are on and it’s vary unsettling….like most of the other attempts at power grabbing that are now occurring in the seat of power.
For the most part, the fact that this discussion thread was conceived, I think, is only because our wonderful 535 over time (and of late 535+1) have diluted our Constitution to such a degree that we barely recognize many of the original tenets therein (separation of church & state?????). Many of the thoughts on this thread are great ideas (probably when massaged, all of them)….but they are mostly “band-aids” to fix symptoms that has arisen due to the fact that our legislators down through the years–in the case of many of them, well intentioned–have continued to address one perceived problem and in the process created ten more, which have in reality trashed (the disease) the founding document. Our laws, therefore, problems, continue to grow exponentially and we find ourselves in the midst of a looming storm.
Our current situation is Washington, i.e, the ongoing battle of the Founders vs. the trashers, reminds me of the old story of the five caged primates being sprayed by cold water whenever they reached for a banana (http://www.wowzone.com/5monkeys.htm). The moral being, “it’s done this way because we’ve always done it this way.” And new monkeys come every two years.
Since it’s become stylish in Washington for many of the 535 to ignore the wishes of the people, perhaps we can actually solve some of our problems (treating the disease instead of the symptom) by a flurry of national referendums that will put the trashers back in their rightful places through constitutional amendments. I guess to do that, though, there needs to be enough people who actually want the real America back.
EXCERPTED FROM USA TODAY:
“Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.
The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.”
Now that congress is suggesting that doctors cut their income and medical devise manufactures cut their gross revenues, and pharmaceutical companies also cut their incomes, and hospitals also drop their incomes how about government employees take a 5% cut in pay for a two-year period? Just two years.
That would include senators, congresspersons, their staffs and all non-military personal.
Congress is great at cutting everyone else’s income show some real leadership, cut your own.
I just emailed the above to my congressman and one senator, before reading this thread.
***
@Donald Bly
By its very nature politics is a very messy business, and in the end we are all dependent upon men and women doing the right thing for their constituency. No matter how many new rules, laws, or regulations you pass we come down to men and women doing the right thing.
If you become too specific you tie yourself in a knot, too loose and the bad apples run amuck. In the latter instance the “good apples” are supposed to reign in the “bad apples,” but in our current situation the whole barrel seems rotten. And that is why we have elections. Unfortunately, the wait between them is maddening, but blogs like this one give prospective candidates, incumbent or otherwise, food for thought and indicate what the people are thinking. And right now it ain’t pretty.
I wonder if any of the incumbents read these, or do they just go about their merry way talking to each other?
@Donald Bly
By its very nature politics is a very messy business, and in the end we are all dependent upon men and women doing the right thing for their constituency. No matter how many new rules, laws, or regulations you pass we come down to men and women doing the right thing.
If you become too specific you tie yourself in a knot, too loose and the bad apples run amuck. In the latter instance the “good apples” are supposed to reign in the “bad apples,” but in our current situation the whole barrel seems rotten. And that is why we have elections. Unfortunately, the wait between them is maddening, but blogs like this one give prospective candidates, incumbent or otherwise, food for thought and indicate what the people are thinking. And right now it ain’t pretty.
I wonder if any of the incumbents read these, or do they just go about their merry way talking to each other?
I just emailed this to my congressman and one senator, before reading this thread.
EXERPETED FROM USA TODAY:
“Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.
The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.”
Now that congress is suggesting that doctors cut their income and medical devise manufactures cut their gross revenues, and pharmaceutical companies also cut their incomes, and hospitals also drop their incomes how about government employees take a 5% cut in pay for a two-year period? Just two years.
That would include senators, congresspersons, their staffs and all non-military personal.
Congress is great at cutting everyone else’s income show some real leadership, cut your own.
@Pinger
Yes, you are right, many of these proposals are nothing more than band-aids meant to deal with the open sore we call congress. But sometimes band-aids will prevent an open sore from becoming a fatal infection.
I”m on board with the idea of national referendums.
But that was the purpose of this thread. To illicit suggestions on ways we might “take back” America. Even I think some of my proposals are a bit radical, I have some really radical ideas that think could do wonders for the nation but alas, I don’t want to have a decent discussion ruined by a sense that the loons are loose, requiring me to spend an inordinate amount of time having to defend my sanity.
But then again, what our founding fathers proposed was radical for its time and I’m willing to bet that many in Great Britain thought they were insane.
Private Property rights in America are a myth. “Owning property” is an illusion when in fact all you can do is rent the property from the government with rental payments masquerading as property taxes. Therefore I’d like to see:
Let government find some other way to fund themselves. At some point the American people need to know that they can be “secure in their homes” without having to worry about being taxed out of them. This would be a huge plus for seniors on fixed incomes. This might also act as an incentive for individuals to quit using their homes as a piggy bank to fund irresponsible consumer spending. Of course the choice would still be theirs…. carry a mortgage and you are subject to property tax. Pay off your mortgage and rid yourself of the property tax too.
@ Donald Bly —
OK . . . I’ll bite: no real estate taxes on unencumbered properties. Ok.
In my state, real estate taxes go the locality, which uses them to fund local goverment, fire, and police. Some of the taxes go to the school district where the property is located. So exactly where are the loaclities and the school district’s going to get money from under your plan? Higher income taxes? How is that better?
And why should property owner A get free police and fire protection, while property owner B has to pay for his? What does a mortgage have to do with anything? How does that justify the difference in treatment? Why should garage owner A get a competitive tax advantage over garage owner B because he has no mortgage . . . an already lower cost structure? That is socialism for the well off at the expense of the less well off. How does that make any sense?
Does a personal loan to the property owner, secured by a lien on the property, count as a “mortgage”? If not, then everyone will use that form of financing and have everyone else pay for their fire and police protection.
And do you think the tax rates will have to increase on the property owners who have mortgages, since they have to pay for fire and police for the other property owners? Yes, they will. Because the cost of fire and police will not change when a property is not mortgaged; only the revenue stream will change, and that will be a decrease.
Your plan, in short, is stupid and not well thought out.
@ButtRob
As I stated….
Might give local government officials something to do!
Take a breath… I’m going to have to side with billy bob here. Tho again his presentation is crass and vindictive. With that, I take exception… again. But then that’s common for his commentary.
Donald, INRE:
Nary a semblence of truth there, Donald. Barring the increasingly intrusive eminent domain laws and rulings of late that seize property under questionable intents, you are free to develop your land as you choose, within zoning regulations and building codes parameters. Your “rental” analogy is better applied when considering homes in state or national forest lands with long term leases, or similar homes on community trust lands.
Equating property taxes as “rent” is a farfetched leap in concept considering vested title/ownership of said land. Even being in the arrears in property taxes doesn’t result in land seizure, but will result in a recorded lien or judgment against the real estate that must be paid upon any transfer in title vesting. The lenders holding the mortgage will simply pay the taxes and revert your loan to a PITI payment to ensure future taxes are paid timely.
On the flip side, don’t pay your rent and you’ll find your butts and belongings parked on the sidewalk, according to the notification terms found in various tenant/landlord state laws.
Expanding on the somewhat bizarre view of property taxes as rent begs to request how, in your view, *any* tax is different than “rent”, so to speak. Taxes on automobile purchases perhaps? Do you not continue to pay fees for registering your vehicle? How about food or retail products? Do you, or do you not “own” such items despite the taxes? How about recurring income taxes… again “constitutional”, those we may all question the percentages and use of those funds.
SCOTUS has held that both federal and state governments have the right of eminent domain, one of the four rights government retains in land for revenue collection (i.e. property taxes, eminent domain, police power aka zoning/codes, and escheat). This revenue stream goes back to feudal system days.
Taxation, like it or not, is Constitutional… within reason. Localities, as billy bob points out, have responsibilities for community services that are shared by all… save renters. In their case, their landlord covers their portion for services by his/her vested ownership. Were you to be more just in your idea of property taxes, you might well be asking why only those with real estate holdings are supporting those without assets.
The general answer to that is it was considered that those affluent enough to afford real property assets were in a better position to contribute to the community services. It might also be pointed out owners have more to lose in their assets without fire and police protection. The real property loss far outweighs the personal property loss for a renter (speaking in terms of “stuff”, not emotions, of course)
billy bob is also correct that where the financing comes for acquisition of real estate has no bearing on property taxes. Lenders hold a trustee deed, but do not have any of the remaining bundle of rights (excluding the four outlined above), still held in fee simple, qualified fee, life estates or other means of vesting by individuals…. save thru foreclosure.
INRE government finding other ways to fund themselves, what would you suggest they do for community services and shared assets (roads, infrastructure etc). Throw a bake sale?
Taxation at all levels of government is Constitutional, again within reason. We can debate the methods and implementation of taxation, but certainly not the need for the revenue stream for commonly needed services.
A few years ago I was bored enough to watch a CSPAN episode covering a Governors Conference and the issue was how to get property tax levies passed. Solution – Exempt those blocks of voters most likely to vote against such measures from having to pay the tax. I guess that’s representation without taxation. I was appalled.
I’m not in any way discounting the governments right to levy taxes on property.
My target isn’t all property but rather real-estate, thus the connection to the “mortgage” which would also mean that there wouldn’t be a mass exodus from the current property tax rolls as I doubt too many people could simply pay off their mortages tomorrow, allowing our local elected officials to come up with something a bit better than “hold a bake sale” to fund the services that are a necessary part of government.
The common thread I see in the rebuttals to any “food for thought” suggestion here is that the system is what the system is and any thinking outside of the box is simply an exercise in futility because there are no new ideas under the sun that could possibly be of any benefit. The system is already perfect in its current incarnation.
A one sentence “idea” doesn’t lend itself well to details.
But one detail of this proposal would be that it applied only to residential property and not commercial property.
How many senior citizens whom have paid property taxes for 30 years, are now on fixed incomes have property tax assessments greater than their original mortgage payments? Oh those wealthy homeowners, how dare anyone suggest that they might not have already shouldered their share of the burden for roads and infrastructure long since built and paid for by their property taxes.
Now, Donald, I did agree that debate over tax percentages were fair game. But certainly not abolishing property taxes for local and state revenue.
INRE your senior citizens comment…. I’m actually wondering why you just confine it to senior citizens? Surely this isn’t a “for the children” type ploy, eh? tsk tsk. Now don’t you be resorting to progressive/Alinsky playbook rules, guy. You’re way cuts above that one.
Fact is I think property taxes should be reassessed often. However that works well for consumers when the property values drop, but is a real bear in a bull real estate market. Because all that costs the state money, the standard practice is to require each individual to petition the tax assessor’s office for a re’do of assessed value. At this time, it’s not only senior citizens, it’s everyone. Taxes are extraordinarily high for declining market values.
Here in Oregon, for example, they raise property taxes 3% every year because they can. One of those “well intended” ideas that the population passed in a referendum that said the state legislature couldn’t raise their property taxes more than 3% in a year. So how’d the bozos in Salem respond? They raise them 3% annually, no matter what the market. Hey… they’re just doing what some “well intended” referendum suggested.
This is the problem with most of the ideas I see you’ve presented. They are simply a Pandora’s box, or as you say, a band aid to the real problem. The cure isn’t more regulation to cure bad regulation and law. It’s to force a Congress to revert back to founding priniciples and strip away the power they’ve absconded in ever increasing increments since the New Deal.
Thus my tongue in cheek suggestion that for every new law enacted, five must come off the books. It’s time to start house cleaning the Congressional Library book of rules. And perhaps we should start being proactive using the progressives biggest tool… lawyers and the courts. ala start challenging some of these powers in class action suits until we start making a dent.
Donald, just a thought on this:
I have great aversion to “thinking outside the *Constitutional* box”. I believe the difference between you and I is you believe you can improve on the founding principles… which is the way we got to this clusterf*#k to begin with. Me? I think the founders’ simplicity and strict limitation of powers cannot be improved upon, and that we need to be stripping away all these revisionist “improvements” that came from “out of the box”, social justice intentions.
Any suggestons on how to accomplish such a task?
Does that mean we should abandon the contitutional ammendments passed since our founding or is it possible that there are improvements that can be made and the reason that our Founding Fathers in their great wisdom gave us a mechanism to do just that?
If there are improvements that could be made, isn’t a good place to start, the debate process?
Maybe more and more foreclosures is a good thing, then of course we’ll have a higher percentage of people that own nothing and pay no property tax but still vote on the right to tax those that do own property. I’m sure liberal local government officials seeking to expand the role of local government would jump for joy.
If I’m not mistaken voting was once limited to property owners and who could vote was left up to the states. It wasn’t until the 1830’s that property requirements were abolished. It wasn’t until 1868 and the 14th ammendment before every male 21 and older got the vote. And not until 1920 and the passage of the 19th ammendment that women were given the right to vote. So let us strip away all of those ammendments and get back to what our founders wrote into the constitution in their infinite wisdom…. Those pesky revisionist constitutional ammendments that did address social injustice must go. What say you? Oh.. you’ve already answered that in your previous post.
Donald, that’s a rather blanket assumption, alluding that I wanted to discard all amendments. Certainly there are those I agree with… specifically those that clarified the original principles of freedom and pursuit of happiness to all citizens… i.e. voting rights and prohibition of discrimination based on gender or race.
There are others that started the assumption of powers never intended. Prohibition, the 18th Amendment, for instance and it’s repeal in the 21st. A stellar example of nanny “good intent” far beyond the scope of the Founders. Nor am I fond of the 16th Amendment, expanding the powers of taxation.
The revisionist improvements that I genuinely object to are the delegation of powers that Congress assumes when it tasks sundry agencies for implementation and specifics/details of their laws. A great example of this is what is happening with O’healthcare. Devil in the regulation details. It is in these agency regulations that the questionable acts of government overstepping it’s bounds come into play.
I might remind you of your own title to this post… “laws” you’d like to see. Not
Congressional… sorry, brain fart… *Constitutional* amendments. Amending the Constitution is not an endeavor I believe should be taken lightly. There has only been 33 proposals in our history, of which on 27 have resulted in ratification. Yet our Congress averages (if you believe Wiki) around 200 attempts annually to “improve” our foundation – most of which never make it out of committee (thank heavens…). This means that the idea that “debate” doesn’t occur on Congressional “improvements” is quite mistaken.However most of the proposals you have yourself cited, most especially the reference to property taxation, provide yet another “band aid” or abuse of a Congressional power, achieved by a very liberal interpretation of a Constitutional amendment.
Which brings me to your “any suggestions”, comment. I made my suggestion. Our system allows for laws to be challenged in our court system. Surely you don’t believe that Congress is simply going to change their mind and yield their increased powers. A perfect example of this is the ACLU/Gitmo assault on the DTA and MCA.
It’s an expensive proposition and highly unlikely to be handled by anyone with their eyes on their wallets first. It is, however, the singlemost effective way of slapping Congress down. If you have the bones for a good enough oral argument before SCOTUS to attack the very foundations of a law… i.e. is government health care mandates Constitutional… that precedent comes in very handy for other similar assumptions of power. And it starts clearing da sheeeet off the books.
BTW, as a tidbit of history, the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage, became necessary for the reference to punish any denial of suffrage to “male” inhabitants in the 2nd clause of the 14th amendment. Prior to that, women were never prohibited the vote by any language in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights / original ten amendments. At that time, it was just a societal given.
However the specific gender language in that amendment actually resulted in the Constitutional denial of of the vote to women for over 50 years. Prior to that, were there a male barrister inclined to take such an unpopular case thru the system, it would have been hard pressed to find legitimacy in that denial prior to the 14th.
Last time I checked, the Constitution was the highest “law” of the land. The title did not exclude the Constitution. I do not take modifying the highest law of the land lightly either and merely making “suggestions” will never alter the fact that it takes a great deal to change the document.
As much as I’d like to have the faith in our court system that you do, it is often that very court system through activist judges that has usurped our freedoms and infringed on the rights of congress. How many generations must live under the tyranny of unjust and unconstitutional laws before a challenge to such laws winds its way through the court system at a cost that would be out of reach to the ordinary citizen. When I “suggest” that legislation be reviewed by the court system for constitionality before it goes into effect, you claim that such an action would clog the docket. Nothing I suggested would preclude the individual from further challenging the constitutionality of legislation on a case by case basis based on the actual enforcement of such legislation. My suggestion would merely create a precursory check on legislative oversteps.
Perhaps we are both deluding ourselves. As you state, it is a very expensive proposition to seek redress through the courts and maybe only the interests of the uber rich will ever be addressed. On another thread, there is a situation concerning bussing and the issue has dragged for 30+ years through the court system and this is not unusual. The cost I believe was in excess of 260 million dollars.
Buying influence and congressional elections might seem cheap to the special interests. My first 3 suggestions in the original post were designed to look at that injustice. Were they perfect solutions, maybe not, but they were a point from which to begin debate. Do you honestly think that congress itself would even consider debating such measures? We now have the executive branch, bribing congressmen/women for their votes with the recipients bragging about the price which they recieved. There is a cancer in our country which I believe is in part a function of having an elected nobility that utilize the power of incumbency to create the most lopsided enviornment from which they can perpetualize their grip on power.
The Constitution says we have the right to property and that the government has a right to tax property, but when written only property owners could vote. Ben Franklin in his wisdom said “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Our system has exempted so many from the payment of taxes and the voters have elected so many that are willing to buy their votes with payment from those that do pay taxes that I believe Ben Franklin’s statement is very near coming true.
But, on the other hand, would it be such a great injustice to allow people that have paid property taxes for thirty years to have their homes free and clear of any further encumbrances so that they might be able to live out their years without having to work till the very end of their days to pay for the right to live in their own homes without fear of liens on their property and the threat of public auction to pay such taxes?
Prior to the 14th Ammendment, the decision as to whom could vote was a matter left to the individual states. So yes, even here, we can see that the attempt to correct a social injustice that you have deemed worthy created another injustice. In fact until the 14th ammendment the Federal government had no power at all to determine who could or could not vote.
Getting it right is tough business.
Sorry if I made an assumption based on what you wrote specifically.
2. No elected official may accept a campaign contribution of any kind while in office. (in regards to congress)
The “special interests” would still make contributions beforehand, and then expect the politician to do their bidding after being elected. This idea might water-down lobbying’s effects a bit, but wouldn’t eliminate it entirely. The ultimate campaign finance reform would be to simply force Congress back into compliance with the Constitution and eliminate its ability to conduct favortism in the first place.
7. Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank.
I thought it was already…?
8. No business is too big to fail and bailouts of private business entities shall be prohibited.
Fine, except when some corporation is having money problems that are a direct result of government intervention. I remember right after 9/11, Bush grounded all the airlines for a couple of days, and this seemed to be all that it took to put most of them in the red. (I couldn’t believe that they evidently had so little cash reserves.) The federal government proceeded to bail them out, and I don’t recall anyone, right or left, uttering a peep.
A. Executive pay shall not exceed a multiple of 50 of the average compensation of all employees.
No. Corporate compensation is nobody’s damn business. Remember, in publicly-traded corporations, top executives serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors, who in turn are elected by the shareholders. If said shareholders feel that executive compensation is excessive, they can and will threaten the Board members over the matter. Evidently, Disney’s shareholders felt that Michael Eisner was worth 90 million a year, and they are the ones who own the company. Who are you and I to argue?
If executive compensation is threatening the company’s financial health and passing along excessive costs to its customers, they’ll walk and the company will suffer, at which point the shareholders will act. Have some faith in their common sense.
Private corp’s (pre-IPO’s and others who don’t offer their stock for sale) absolutely are not answerable to anyone other than their customers.
B. Executive bonuses/stock options etc. shall be be identical to the workers as a percentage of base compensation.
See above.
If the workers don’t like the deal they’re getting, they can walk. Companies have to compete with one another for talent, and must pay accordingly. Individual employees can negotiate salary and benefits at hire. Again, it’s not anyone else’s business.
Your heart is in the right place, but I think you’ve missed the mark on a few of these.
@Clyar
Bush’s actions would have been considered a “taking” if just compensation had not been provided. A taking has two elements. The depriving of a private entity of the use of their property and failure to justly compensate for said taking.
2. No elected official may accept a campaign contribution of any kind while in office. (in regards to congress) in conjunction with 3. The number of representative shall be one for every 30,000 citizens. would force “special interests” to consider the potential payback of supporting a candidate that did not have the advantages of the power of incumbency and 9,000 representatives would really throw a monkey wrench into the special interest groups attempts to buy influence. They’d have to write an awful lot of checks.
How do you accomplish this feat?
Willima Edwards post provides the most eloquent rational for compensation limitations
@MataHarley
Thanks for the fiesty discussion on the Laws I’d Like to See thread. I’ve enjoyed the mental exercise immensely.